Class B drivers' license regulation

[CS]

Unless I missed something, this is all based on categorizing a van a 'bus.'  If that 'bus' (which is absurd anyway!), is not used for hire and endorsement can be provided to a class D license according to California Law.  IMHO it is another over reaction by a CAP member without properly evaluating the circumstances.  And yes, anyone that is properly licensed to drive a vehicle in their state may operate a vehicle licensed in that state in any state in the USA.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Oddly enough the "C" state on the East Coast has the same issue. Under CT law our vans are "service buses" and require a passenger endorsement on the CT license. The statute has a specific exemption for drivers licensed in other states. As a RI resident I'm currently one of the few CTWG members that can drive the 10 + pax

[PHall]

Unless I missed something, this is all based on categorizing a van a 'bus.'  If that 'bus' (which is absurd anyway!), is not used for hire and endorsement can be provided to a class D license according to California Law.  IMHO it is another over reaction by a CAP member without properly evaluating the circumstances.  And yes, anyone that is properly licensed to drive a vehicle in their state may operate a vehicle licensed in that state in any state in the USA.

Well, that's the way that section of the California Vehicle Code is written. And the CAP member who you say is "overreacting" is the Wing Commander who also happens to be a police officer who has this thing about having CAP obey the law. Imagine that!

[CS]

Understood, as I am also a LEO and have involvement with federal DOT, which is where I derive my over reaction from.  As we who have been in CAP a long time every level of CAP has had at least one over reaction .  That includes former National Commander's, Region Commander's, and even Wing Commander's.

[RiverAux]

Email from CAWG/CC to unit CCs

Commanders,

It is YOUR job to educate the membership on this issue. The information provided by Maj Hoebink is the exact same information I provide at the very start of the Class B issue. As a 26 year California law enforcement officer, I was dismayed at how many members seemed to express they knew the law better than me.

I now direct that the conversation over Class B requirements and 15 PAX vans come to a close. We have more pressing issues to deal with. The commanders, lawyers, law enforcement officers and transportation professionals have all looked at this issue and come to the exact, same concussion; Class B licensure is required for our 10+ PAX vehicles, modified or not. 

Thanks,

Ken

It would have been interesting to see the discussion that prompted a reply like this. 

Now, I have no particular dog in this fight, but just because someone is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean that they know any particular law very well.  There is too much of it for anyone to know it all.  Heck, even lawyers can disagree on what a particular law means and the legislators who write the laws can and do disagree on what they mean on occasion.  Really not much different than CAP regulations when you come down to it. 

[ßτε]

If anyone is interested, here is the attachment that came with the above email.

[cap235629]

If anyone is interested, here is the attachment that came with the above email.

Just one more reason to stay away from California.

[a2capt]

I think it's hilarious, myself. The vehicle code says it right in plain English. If it's operated for a non-profit, you need the license. You'll get one with a passenger endorsement but a capacity limitation if you use one of our vans for the drive test. Sorta like a commercial license w/o instrument rating.

If you are operating it as a private individual there's no issue. Taking 12 kids to lunch during a day of little league might be a stretch in the determination of operating as a private individual, but if your household is the like Eight is Enough or the Brady Bunch, you're good to go.

[lordmonar]

The question I have is........if removing a seat does not make "designed to carry less then 10)......what does? 

Let's be real here.........there are lots of off the shelf vans that have options at time of purchase for 2, 5, 8, 11, 12....the vans are exactly the same except for the number of seats installed.

Simply removing the seats (and maybe the seat belts) of the extra bench should qualify as changing it's designed carrying capacity.

[Spaceman3750]

The question I have is........if removing a seat does not make "designed to carry less then 10)......what does? 

Let's be real here.........there are lots of off the shelf vans that have options at time of purchase for 2, 5, 8, 11, 12....the vans are exactly the same except for the number of seats installed.

Simply removing the seats (and maybe the seat belts) of the extra bench should qualify as changing it's designed carrying capacity.

It also has to do with the size and weight of the vehicle - simply removing a bench doesn't change the overall size of the vehicle.

[EMT-83]

As explained by CT DMV:

The vehicle was still designed to carry that number of passengers. Whether the seats are actually installed is irrelevant, as is the number of passengers actually on board.

If the vehicle is designed for 10 passengers and only 2 are on board, it's still a 10 passenger vehicle.

[a2capt]

The issue is the manufacture is the designer of the vehicle. Not the customer. Not the DMV, not the court system. Or anyone else. The VC is written to be simple and have cut offs that are easy to figure out.

If it's purchased as a cargo van it's not designed to have 12 passengers.  Perhaps there's a loophole that someone in some other entity may have explored. Buy panel vans and install seats, windows and carpets. I suspect that it's all the same. Get the license, or don't drive them. It's easier than spending time and resources fighting the rule book.

[Thom]

With the issue of the higher-class license requirement now resolved (we think...) shouldn't the next steps be something like this:

1. Let NHQ/USAF/whoever know that they should be buying smaller vans when procuring new vehicles. We weren't using the whole space anyway. Or, has this shift already been made?

2. Work with PCR or NHQ to shift the large vans out of CA and into States where the higher-class license isn't required. Shift the existing smaller vans into CA.

Those two things together should, over time, reduce the license issue's effect on CAWG.

Or, did I miss something obvious?


Thom

[BillB]

The obvious:
Many Squadron DO need the larger vans even in California
The cost of transferring a title along with the new licence plate can cost up to $100 plus many states
will charge a sales tax on a vehicle brought into the state.
The paperwork headache at National would be very large

[davidsinn]

The obvious:
Many Squadron DO need the larger vans even in California
The cost of transferring a title along with the new licence plate can cost up to $100 plus many states
will charge a sales tax on a vehicle brought into the state.
The paperwork headache at National would be very large

Why transfer a title? They are all owned by CAP, Inc. Just move them and get new plates when they are due.

[lordmonar]

The obvious:
Many Squadron DO need the larger vans even in California
The cost of transferring a title along with the new licence plate can cost up to $100 plus many states
will charge a sales tax on a vehicle brought into the state.
The paperwork headache at National would be very large

Why transfer a title? They are all owned by CAP, Inc. Just move them and get new plates when they are due.

Differeing laws.

In NV we don't have to register the vechilces....we have a blanket waiver....but other states require them to regestered and plated.
So even if the title owner does not change the title and registration may have to be transfered.